Perception of Cues in Conflictual Dating Situations

Abstract

To account for the disturbing prevalence of acquaintance rape, both researchers and lay people often use the Miscommunication Hypothesis—the assumption that most acquaintance rape and coercive sex follow from miscommunication between men and women. The present study was designed as a pilot to begin to empirically investigate the Miscommunication Hypothesis. Equal numbers of men and women wrote short essays in response to a scenario describing a dating interaction in which sexual conflict occurred. For the 40 participants, gender differences in the meanings of behavioral cues for sexual interest, nonconsent, and coercion, were not associated with their perceptions or descriptions of coercive sex. These findings call into question the validity of the Miscommunication Hypothesis, suggesting that relatively few men may engage in sexual coercion without realizing, or being able to realize, that that is what they are doing. The study therefore also raises questions about the efficacy of many rape prevention programs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence of ambiguity in communication between women and men. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 96-112). New York: John Wiley.

Bechhofer, L. , & Parrot, A. (1991). What is acquaintance rape? In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 9-25). New York: John Wiley.

Boston Women's Health Collective . (1992). The new our bodies, ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. In E. S. Byers & L. F. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Sexual coercion in dating relationships (pp. 7-25). New York: Haworth.

Canadian Federation of Students. (1992). No means no. Poster and student activity campaign. Studentsaver, 92/93, 4.

Corcoran, C. B. (1992). From victim control to social change: A feminist perspective on campus rape prevention programs. In J. C. Chrisler & D. Howard (Eds.), New directions in feminist psychology: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 130-140). New York: Springer.

Fownes, N. (1993, June 21). Sending a message about date rape: Lunenburg students hope to educate peers with “No means No” video. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald, p. A12.

Gilmartin-Zena, P. (1988). Gender differences in students' attitudes toward rape. Sociological Focus, 21, 279-292.

Hull, D. B. , Forrester, L. , Hull, J. H. , & Gaines, M. L. (1992). How to avoid date rape: College students' perceptions. In J. C. Chrisler & D. Howard (Eds.). New directions in feminist psychology: Practice, theory, and research (pp. 188-199). New York: Springer.

10.

Johnson, C. B. , Stockdale, M. S. , & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463-475.

11.

Johnson, J. D. , & Jackson, L. A. (1988). Assessing the effects of factors that might underlie the differential perception of acquaintance and stranger rape. Sex Roles, 19, 37-45.

12.

Koss, M. P. (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personality, attitudinal, and situational characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 193-212.

13.

Koss, M. P. , & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). Sexual experiences survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422-423.

14.

Koss, M. P. , & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Koss, M. P. , & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457.

16.

Lewin, M. (1985). Unwanted intercourse: The difficulty of saying no. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 184-192.

17.

McCaw, J. M. (1993). Sex differences in perceptions of dangerous sexual behaviors: The case of acquaintance rape. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

18.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988a). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 20-37.

19.

Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988b). “Nice women” don't say yes and “real men” don't say no: How miscommunication and the double standard can cause sexual problems. Women and Therapy, 8, 95-108.

20.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 872-879.

21.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 34, 186-196.

22.

Muehlenhard, C. L. , & McCoy, M. L. (1991). Double standard/double bind: The sexual double standard and women's communication about sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 447-461.

23.

Sandberg, G. , Jackson T. L. , & Petretic-Jackson, P. (1987). College students' attitudes regarding sexual coercion and aggression: Developing educational and preventive strategies. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 302-311.